I know why the Red camera sucks.

[Erick von Schulz]

I figured it out last night why the Red cameras suck.

People think they can buy a great digital camera such as the Red Epic, One or Scarlett and then all of a sudden their crappy shots of loved ones behind white walls filmed in bad lighting will suddenly look like Gatsby.
They then blame the camera for producing uncolorful drab images with no conscious thought into what goes into a movie production.

Cinematography
Lighting design
Costumes
Set design
Color grading
Etc…

Then they complain to all the forums about how these incredible cameras suck and have no dynamic range or color gamut. Sitting there with no clue about why their footage sucks and other people are pumping out incredible images.
The camera can only record what is in front of it. Major motion pictures have millions in production value. One day of filming can cost more then a house.

So it all boils down to people who can not get a good image out of the camera have no production value, poor lighting, and no skill behind any camera for that matter.

So if your footage sucks it is you who and not the camera.

This may have been posted before. Because I know others must feel the same way about idiots out there.

 

[Johnny Friday]

I published this in the underwater bubble forum...and i think this applies well to what it takes to use this camera....Shooting is only one piece of the BIG pie....you need a lot of computer horspower: my post below from Bubble group:

I wanted to share the LOOK out of camera in RAW vs. Post work on a RAW R3d....I've had several questions about this over the past months and all of us are finding out more and more...From my experience, i find the post to be a 2:1 or 3:1 process...for every hour of shooting, i spend 2-3 hours in post. The look from RAW that we all see if coming from video is hard to accept. But when you learn the post process you begin to understand how much control you have over your images. BUT, it also requires serious horse power in a machine and then the knowlege of how to put it all together. It's basically a learning process with no end in site as the software continually changes to keep up with the huge files we are shooting. It's also NOT always the right tool to shoot RED for much of the Doc work that's run and gun and fast post. I'm amazed at how many docs & commericals i have worked on that don't get the RAW workflow. And in the end the "end product" is not so good and they would have done a far better job using a betacam or ex1 or even canon 5d. BUT, when you understand and have the time for RAW workflow AND a colorist that can bring out those results.....then the "end result" can be stunning.
I am FAR from a colorist, but i give it a good shot and learn on every production from the editor or colorist. In some instances i'm showing them the look they want underwater while utilizing their skills at the command station.

here are two grabs: one a RAW R3d and the other a JPG that was taken off of my home color session. The results are far apart. You will also notice vignetting. i was using the Nikon 16-85 since we were doing a lot of medium close detail work.

[/url] RAW Look by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/url] Colored-Look by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

PS: the following did apply: bad lighting, low contrast subjects and moving subjects at variety of distances from lens. But, the ability to work in post allowed for decent images. That said, in many cases (like this one) a sony 900 would have been perfect. But if for big screen like a recent commercial i worked on....the RED was a better choice even under similar circumstances with wild animals in the sea.

 

[Erick von Schulz]

Awesome.. I knew there had to be others out there who felt the same. I love the shot. I think you are right about camera choice. That did not occur to me. Sometimes people select the wrong camera for the job. They hear the Red is incredible then have e hell of time with it because they may have been better served with the cameras you mentioned above.

Computers are getting so fast that even on my two year old system I can edit realtime at 1/2 quality. Plus in Davinci I get about 14-18 fps with only one graphics card and an SDI stream going out. I am building a new one that should be even better. My new Christmas present to myself.

 

[Brian Pascale]

The more I shoot with my Scarlet, the better the results. It helps to have good, fast lenses. Even with natural light, the camera can look magical.

 

[Erick von Schulz]

Lenses are huge factor in the cinematic look. I have seen a few people shoot with a 18-55mm F5.6 kit lens trying to figure out why they can not duplicate the look of Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[Dominik Muench]

the only way RED sucks is by making other cameras uninteresting to shoot.
ever since i first shot red i dont want to touch any other systems anymore, even when I'm on vacation and do travel photography with my DSLR i long for my red epic to be there ^^

 

[stu aull]

No doubt, my Scarlet is a demanding little mistress. 25 yrs shooting video and its like I'm learning all over again. But damn, when I nail it, it is a thing of beauty.
Its a lesson my old Ducati has been teaching me the last 30 years I've owned her too. RED camera, red Pantah. Need to work for the rewards, but ever too old to learn...

Stu Aull
SX199
Alaska

 

[TonySegreto]

Talk about a weird thread! That is all kind of true. Many people have said it before, but it is more so the people behind the camera than the camera itself. That being said, some cameras make the process way easier than others. Also for things like post work and compositing, RED is more information, therefor has more latitude on the back end for effects people. Though, if your doing ENG for a news channel and you need to get footage shot and digitized ASAP, and they DGAF about quality, RED probably isn't the best way to go.

 

[Edward Johnson]

Awesome.. I knew there had to be others out there who felt the same. I love the shot. I think you are right about camera choice. That did not occur to me. Sometimes people select the wrong camera for the job. They hear the Red is incredible then have e hell of time with it because they may have been better served with the cameras you mentioned above.

Computers are getting so fast that even on my two year old system I can edit realtime at 1/2 quality. Plus in Davinci I get about 14-18 fps with only one graphics card and an SDI stream going out. I am building a new one that should be even better. My new Christmas present to myself.

I was too afriad to say it thanks Erick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[John Stamets]

Agreed. Garbage In Garbage Out. The only difference between amateur and professional is level of detail. The more time you spend on the details, the better the product.
A friend of mine lamented the digitizing of cameras on the grounds the people will stop paying attention to the items you mentioned - framing, composition, contrast - the details that you pay a LOT of attention to if you can only shoot a scene once or twice because the film is too expensive. His point - film makes you think. Has nothing to do with the media, but the mindset.